Last Will may prevail over earlier Will:-

-
  Last Will may prevail over earlier Will:- In case of dispute between earlier and subsequent parts of a Will,the subsequent part of the Will will prevails ( Kaivelikkal Ambunhi & ors vs H.Ganesh Bhandary,(1995) 5 SCC-444 & Uma Devi Nambiar & ors vs TC Sidhan,( 2004) 2 SCC-321. In case of “ Jasbir Singh vs Jaspal Singh & ors ”,2016 SCC Online P & H-3416,it   was held that the last will would prevail and the previous Will automatically deemed to have been cancelled, even in the absence of any specific clause.
Post a Comment

Ossification test for determination of victim's Age:-

-

 Ossification test for determination of victim's Age:-






        The ossification test is the test that determines the age on the "degree of fusion of bone" by taking X-ray of  bones of hands.Bone age is an indicator of the skeletal and biological maturity of an individual which assists in the determination of age.The most common method used for calculation of the bone age is radiography of the hand and wrist until the age of 18 years. However,it must be noted that the ossification test varies slightly based on individual characteristics,therefore the ossification test though is relevant however it cannot be called solely conclusive.





        Section 68 (1) read with Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules,2007 provides the legislative sanction for conduct of Ossification Test  to determine age of the victim in the absence of other age proof certificate.


        The institutions where there are no other documentary evidence available  that establish the age of  the victim it is pertinent that the ossification test be carried out in the interest of justice.


        The problem of no age proof documents in India especially in the rural areas.Secondly,the ossification test gains relevance in situations wherein  the victim may attempt to falsify the age in order to attain a conviction,therefore this may lead to an abuse of the legal process.Further,by virtue of age falsification or lack of proof pertaining to age will go against the tenets of fair trial to which the accused is entitled to and would result in attracting stringent sections under the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012) Act.


        An example of forged and fabricated documentation pertaining to age can be seen in "Ram Suresh Singh vs Prabhat Singh" reported in (2009) 6 SCC-681,wherein the documentary proof of age given by the respondent was found to be false and fabricated the Supreme Court of India herein held that in such a situation it had no other option but to rely on the Ossification test.



        The evidentiary value given to an Ossification test is the same as has been given to the opinion of experts Under section 45 of the Evidence Act,1872.In "Ramdeo Chauhan vs State of Assam" reported in  (2001) 5 SCC-714,it was held by the Supreme Court of India that:

"The Statement of the doctor is no more than an opinion,the court has to be base its conclusions upon all the facts and circumstances disclosed on examining of the physical features of the person whose age is in question....In this vast country with varied latitudes,heights,environment,vegetation and nutrition,the height and weight cannot be expected to be uniform."


        In "Vishnu vs State of Maharashtra" reported in (2006) 1 SCC-283,the Supreme Court clarified further that the ossification test by the medical officer is to assist the court which falls under the ambit of medical expert opinion i.e.advisory in nature and not binding.However,such an opinion cannot overrule ocular or documentary evidence,which has been proved to be true and admissible as they constitute "statement of facts."The Court in Vishnu placed reliance on "Madan Gopal Kkkad vs Naval Dubey" reported in (1992) 3 SCC-204 to hold that a medical witness is not a witness of fact therefore the opinion rendered by such a medical expert is merely advisory until accepted by the court however once accepted they become the opinion of the Court (Parhlad vs State of Haryana,(2015) 8 SCC-688.



        In a country such as India documentary proof of age may not always be present with the victim owing to a multitude of reasons,therefore conducting a medical test to determine age becomes essential in order to administer justice.The bone ossification test is however not completely reliable and does not hold good after the victim crosses a certain age.


      

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Applicability of CPC & Limitation Act in Writ Proceedings:-

-
  Applicability of CPC & Limitation Act in Writ Proceedings:-   The issue concerning applicability of the provisions of the CPC in the writ proceedings is no longer res integra in view clear pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in “ Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others” reported in (1996) 2 SCC-205 , wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with an issue as to whether the provisions contained under Order 22 of the CPC are applicable to proceedings under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether provisions of the Act, 1963 would apply in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also no longer res integra in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in “Smt. Sudama Devi v Commissioner and others ” reported in (1983) 2 SCC-1.  
Read more

Guarantor has the liability to pay the loan amount taken by the principal debotor:-

-
  Guarantor has the liability to pay the loan amount taken by the principal debotor:- Recovery of debt from guarantor-Held, guarantee being a continuing guarantee,so long as the principal debt remained due and payable,the guarantor also remained liable-The suit was therefore not barred by limitation-However,liability of guarantor cannot exceed that of the principal debtor,even thought he guarantee documents mentioned so,since guarantor is only guaranteeing debt due by the principal debtor-Principal debtor being liable to pay interest 13.5% in respect of term loan facility   and 14% p.a. in respect of cash credit facility (B.G.Vasantha vs Corporation Bank<amangalore & anr,(2005) 10 SCC-215.                            Liability of guarantor is co-extensive with that of principal debtor unless it is explicitly exluded by the contract-Further held,...
Read more

Inheritance and Survivorship:-

-
  Inheritance and Survivorship:-                         ‘Mulla’ in his book Hindu Law (22nd Edition), while discussing the law prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 says that there are two systems of inheritance amongst the Hindus in India, namely, Mitakshara system and Dayabhaga system. The Dayabhaga system prevails in Bengal, while the Mitakshara system is applicable to other parts of India. The difference between the two systems arises from the fact that, while the doctrine of religious efficacy is the guiding principle under Dayabhaga School, there is no such definite guiding principle under the Mitakshara School. Sometimes consanguinity, and at the other times, religious efficacy has been regarded as the guiding principle. According to ‘Mulla’, Mitakshara recognises two modes of devolution of property, namely, survivorship and succession. The rules of survivo...
Read more